Search for: "Wells v. Thomas" Results 421 - 440 of 7,488
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jul 2007, 2:36 pm
This does not bode well for the future of Brown v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 8:25 am by Ilya Somin
S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gutierrez-Brizuela v. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 3:22 am by CMS
Alaina Wadsworth, Ben Brown, Ed Foss and Thomas Pangbourne, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court on 30 October 2019, in the matter of Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ [2019] UKSC 48:  In a decision arising out of claims relating to defective silicone breast implants, the Supreme Court has provided guidance on insurers’ potential liability for third-party costs orders. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 5:28 pm by Colin O'Keefe
If you haven’t noticed, the BP oil spill litigation is not going well for the energy giant. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 8:35 am by Ilya Somin
The George Mason Law Review has just published an interesting new mini-symposium on Kelo v. [read post]
30 Sep 2017, 6:44 am by Walter Olson
Rick Garnett, Notre Dame Law School; and Goodwin Procter LLP partner Thomas Hefferon, discussing Murr v. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 5:49 am
Somehow this well reported case got overlooked here at the Patent Arcade, and that appears to be because I thought I'd already written about it. [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 7:10 pm
I agree with Justice Mihara that the defendant employer here was entitled to summary judgment in its favor, as well as an award of post-998 offer costs (but not attorney fees). [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 9:09 pm by Kenneth Anderson
I read with interest Justice Thomas' dissent in Noriega v. [read post]
18 Jan 2008, 7:52 am
-->freejammie.com or by check, payable to "Jammie Thomas Defense Fund", and mailed toJammie Thomas Defense Fundc/o Chestnut & CambronneSuite 3700, 222 South Ninth StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 10:55 pm by Will Baude
  As Justices Thomas and Scalia discuss in their separate dissents in Mitchell v. [read post]